4 ms·
Yeah, the 100% remote control idea seems unlikely, just provides cover for Iranian leadership when they fail to find the assassins. This is a more thorough and
by panarky 6y ago
Yeah, the 100% remote control idea seems unlikely, just provides cover for Iranian leadership when they fail to find the assassins.
This is a more thorough and believable report: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8997575/Assassination-Irans-nuclear-scientist-involved-62-people-including-12-gunmen.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8997575/Assassinati...
(However, that site is a nightmare of ads, popups and auto-playing video, only legible with uMatrix.)
- adamjb 6y agoNever in my life did I imagine I'd come across a Daily Mail article labelled as a "thorough and believable report". It's half banned as a source on Wikipedia for crying out loud
- dragonwriter 6y agoWell, completeness and superficial verisimilitude is proobably easier when you can just invent a story based on what people are likely to find believable with as much detail as you want because you don't have any journalistic standards.
- panarky 6y ago1) Daily Mail is shit 2) Daily Mail article is more thorough and believable than a tweet sourced to IRGC propaganda Both statements can be true.
- dogma1138 6y agoThe Daily Mail publishes a lot of articles by contributing journalists, Harriet Alexander is actually a pretty good journalist https://twitter.com/h_alexander https://twitter.com/h_alexander
- PhantomGremlin 6y ago(However, that site is a nightmare of ads, popups and auto-playing video, only legible with uMatrix.) It's also legible, I'd even call it pleasant, with Firefox plus NoScript. Many sites block or degrade images when JS is disabled, but not the Daily Mail.